Purpose:

Spirit:

The spirit of the sub is to constructively discuss issues surrounding gender justice in a safer space.

Rules:

You need to be an approved commenter/poster to participate here. For more information on how to become one, please consult our wiki on the topic.

Identifiable groups based on gender, sexuality, gender-politics or race cannot be the target of insulting comments, nor can insulting generalizations be extended to members of those groups. Arguments which specifically and adequately acknowledge diversity within those groups, but still advance a universal principle may be allowed, and will incur no penalty if not. This means that you can say "Women oppress men" and "Men oppress women" without earning an infraction.

No slurs, personal attacks, ad hominem, insults against another users, their argument, or ideology. This does not include criticisms of other subreddits. This includes insults to this subreddit. This includes referring to people as feminazis, misters, eagle librarians, or telling users they mansplaining, femsplaining, JAQing off or any variants thereof.

Mods reserve the right to post a screenshot of extreme messages sent in modmail/pms to the mods, which will result in an infraction.

Everyone, including non-users, is protected by the rules. However, insults against non-users will be modded more leniently.

Guidelines:

Make titles clear and descriptive.

After making a post, assign it flair.

Links to threads, comments, or searches in other subs should be "np" links.

Be nice. Try to communicate constructively and intelligently. Try to help others do the same.

Report comments that are -ist (racist/sexist/etc), rather than commenting that they are -ist. Don't insult people who "deserve" to be insulted. Don't allow yourself to be baited into breaking the rules by someone who is breaking the rules.

If you use a term that is in the Glossary of Default Definitions, and you use it with a different definition, you should specify that definition the first time you use the word.

All comments I delete get posted here, where their deletion can be contested. I try to be as unbiased as I can while working as a mod. However, if you feel I was being unfair in deleting your comment please argue your case here.

Many times my friends and I have caught MRAs arguing that one should claim to be trans in order to get things they want, or as a tool to trick women into touching them, such as doing so to get a woman to pat you down at the airport, or getting in ladies night in a bar, and other things. It happens a lot, and it's usually upvoted.

many MRAs are the type of activist to look for victimization of themselves where it doesn't exist leading to things like...

... an obsession with trans people being likely to 'trick' them into sex and thus committing some kind of rape by non-disclosure. Yes, you'll find many MRAs whom think trans people are just out there to trick men into having sex with them by looking sexy in a club without declaring "I have a penis!" every other minute.

It's because when the mods and leaders of the group are so transphobic, it prompts all the subscribers to be.

The MRM claims to be deeply concerned with the plight of male victims of sexual assault, abuse, rape, exploitation, &c.

The MRM claims to be deeply concerned with the prevalence of sexual crimes committed in prisons.

So why is this even a remotely controversial subject?

These aren't subjects that the MRM already has in its sights? These aren't the kinds of toxic speech that the MRM would like to see purged from society because of their use to degrade and marginalize those who are already vulnerable?

Are you fucking serious?

The fact that this is even a question, "should we ban rape jokes and rape apologia?", blows my mind.

Human rights movement? What a fucking joke.

And look at this shit: THIS SHOULD BE THE LEAST CONTROVERSIAL MODERATION SUBJECT IMAGINABLE, AND IT'S GETTING DOWNVOTED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE!

So how about you, you know, sort out your basic ideological priorities before running a debate sub where you pretend to be a legitimate social movement. Apparently you're still working on "rape is bad" stage of educating your members.

Seriously, this is laughable shit. There aren't enough words to describe how fucking bush league the moderation is if "golly guys, do you think rape jokes are okay for our debate sub?" is even on the table. This is why no one takes you seriously.

Also, since male objectification of women is a systemic issue, it only makes sense to say "men objectify women."

Saying "some men" or "most men" implies there are some men not part of that system. It's axiomatic to say that all men are men. Saying "some men" or even "most men" implies a group of men are not part of social manhood.

Also, since male objectification of women is a systemic issue, it only makes sense to say "men objectify women."

Saying "some men" or "most men" implies there are some men not part of that system. It's axiomatic to say that all men are men. Saying "some men" or even "most men" implies a group of men are not part of social manhood.

I wouldn't say, for example, some women are oppressed. Or some poor people are oppressed. In a social context, it only makes sense to say women are oppressed. Likewise, rich people are oppressors, and men are oppressors. There's no exceptions to this within society. We live in a society where money and manhood are both associated with power.

Trying to get people to say that "some men" all the time is really toxic because it effectively distances one's self from their role as being privileged and/or lack thereof in society.

There wouldn't be any gender wars if the feminists weren't hypocritical liars. They say they are for gender equality, while they focus on women. MRAs are for the exact same thing, but with a focus on men. Saying to a feminist that men's rights are human rights is all it takes to set these people off into violent outrage. It is disgusting that they support oppression simply because some people were born with a penis, and not with a holy vag.

There wouldn't be any gender wars if the feminists weren't hypocritical liars. They say they are for gender equality, while they focus on women. MRAs are for the exact same thing, but with a focus on men.

Saying to a feminist that men's rights are human rights is all it takes to set these people off into violent outrage. It is disgusting that they support oppression simply because some people were born with a penis, and not with a holy vag.

If you think I'm a rape apologist then you have misunderstood what I was trying to convey.

If you don't want to be seen as a rape apologist then stop apologizing for rape. This is not a challenging or even difficult thing to master. You explicitly compared a person getting raped to a matador being gored by a bull; a metaphor that's positively swimming in implications, none of which are a nuanced look at the complexities of consent in a culture where impulse has been romanticized.

You then went on to defend the analogy by saying:

If you goad a bull into a rage and get hurt as a result, you don't earn much compassion from me.

If you goad a man into raping you? See above.

When asked to qualify what "goading a man into raping you" constituted you outlined a number of scenarios, all of which boiled down to a man taking something he felt he was owed based off his own intuitions.

You also explicitly expressed greater sympathy for the rapist than the victim.

Would I in this situation feel more compassion for him than for her? Yes.

While you've attempted to qualify these statement further, your qualifications and elaborate justifying scenarios are functionally moot because you've already gone well past the line of rape apologia, and the qualifications are nothing but specific rape apologia, constructing the precise bounds under which a man would be vindicated in raping a woman because she "had it coming." The reason why this scenario, no matter how much you make the woman into a James Bond villain, is over the line is because a person who is in the position of power required to rape someone always has the option of not raping them, and in the overwhelming majority of practical scenarios even has the option of exiting.

What's particularly telling is that the narrative defining the bounds of justification grow more elaborate with each new addition to the chain as you play a game of keep away with those who are critical of what you said, a game that serves only to dodge criticism without recanting previous statements. That's more or less the definition of apologia.

So, no, I will not be removing the reference because I feel I have more than accurately reflected the ideas that you have espoused: that there is a line where a man becomes entitled to sex and justified in taking it. The idea that rape is ever justified, even under the caveat that it remains wrong or illegal, is reprehensible, and your fanciful "she messed with the bull, so she got the horns" fantasy serves only to condone the actions of evil people. Your entire chain of comments serves no functional or valuable purpose other than constructing a reality wherein sometimes rape is "understandable."

Many times my friends and I have caught MRAs arguing that one should claim to be trans in order to get things they want, or as a tool to trick women into touching them, such as doing so to get a woman to pat you down at the airport, or getting in ladies night in a bar, and other things. It happens a lot, and it's usually upvoted.

many MRAs are the type of activist to look for victimization of themselves where it doesn't exist leading to things like...

... an obsession with trans people being likely to 'trick' them into sex and thus committing some kind of rape by non-disclosure. Yes, you'll find many MRAs whom think trans people are just out there to trick men into having sex with them by looking sexy in a club without declaring "I have a penis!" every other minute.

It's because when the mods and leaders of the group are so transphobic, it prompts all the subscribers to be.

"I think". I hope you know that your opinion isn't going to hold much weight as long as you continue to demonstrate your lack of knowledge about these things.

Broke the following Rules:

No insults against other members of the sub

No personal attacks

Full Text

Lying about that would be a disservice to you and the trans community.

And here it is again, the preoccupation with "lying". Am I "lying" if I'm not constantly shouting "I WAS BORN WITHOUT A PENIS!"? Obviously not. Trans people are not inherently deceptive. Non-disclosure is not lying. No one is saying that lying is ok (unless you're under duress).

I think instead of shaming people for feeling that way (because shame does not change peoples hearts and minds; it only works to keep things the same), we should find out why they feel that way.

Trans people are not all obligated to coddle transphobes.

I also think that the trans community needs to make themselves contrasted from the gay community

"I think". I hope you know that your opinion isn't going to hold much weight as long as you continue to demonstrate your lack of knowledge about these things.

You accused him of being uninformed. I have messaged the other mods because I am still getting my bearings I am more than willing to check with others. If I am in the minority I will approve your comment.

but this to me implies that you are not proud of being trans. I would ask why that is? Well, I already know why. It's because people don't accept trans people.

See, this is why I say you don't know much. You are really in no position to be telling people what to be proud of, or to be making a false pride/shame dichotomy. Also, social acceptance is not the only problem trans people face.

This wasn't a insult, it was statement based on anecdotal evidence. Feminists on reddit compare the African American civil rights movement to modern day feminism a lot... It even happens on this /r/ quite a bit.

The most amazing logical knot (for me) was how MRAs simultaneously argued the anonymous form was so dangerous it justified extreme effort to destroy it, while they also think their "activism" here is harmless because the form doesn't do anything anyway. Like u/Celda,

The most amazing logical knot (for me) was how MRAs simultaneously argued the anonymous form was so dangerous it justified extreme effort to destroy it, while they also think their "activism" here is harmless because the form doesn't do anything anyway. Like u/Celda,

I have no problem with all genuine claims of rape through the form being ignored - that is essentially non-harmful.

Why? Because even if the form was working as intended, and no spamming had occurred, then any genuine claim of rape would have resulted in the rapist being called down to the Dean's Office and warned/interrogated.

So, that would mean that at most, the spamming resulted in a rapist not being called down to the Dean's Office and warned.

Also, these forms have been around for years and they couldn't find a single actual victim hurt by the form. They realize the form is harmless, but still raged about how harmful it is.

Was also quite disappointed to find CotWA, a single issue advocacy group combating false allegations, decided to support false allegations. It is a sad demonstration of how principled those involved are.

Bullshit. This has been your consistent MO.
If you weren't so horribly biased, you'd have removed this entire thread for the trollbait it is. You only kept it to slander MRAs in the first place.
There is a reason most people don't bother to do more than piss in your little swimming pool unless they are SRS or AMR trolls, and that's because everyone else knows what a ridiculous joke your tiny sub is.

If you weren't so horribly biased, you'd have removed this entire thread for the trollbait it is. You only kept it to slander MRAs in the first place.

There is a reason most people don't bother to do more than piss in your little swimming pool unless they are SRS or AMR trolls, and that's because everyone else knows what a ridiculous joke your tiny sub is.

You may have difficulty with complex arguments and complicated ideas. If you are unable to read and comprehend more than brief, simplistic ideas, just trust me; I'm right. This topic is not as cut and dry as you wish, and no amount of avoiding good reason will make your position more true.

Broke the following Rules:

No insults against other members of the sub

Full Text

You may have difficulty with complex arguments and complicated ideas. If you are unable to read and comprehend more than brief, simplistic ideas, just trust me; I'm right. This topic is not as cut and dry as you wish, and no amount of avoiding good reason will make your position more true.

Knowing that you're supporting equality. Same as egalitarians. Same as non-sexist MRAs.

We both know the answer to that, which is obviously no. That doesn't cancel out the trends of misandry in modern feminism. I'm not going to continue talking to you if you're just going to play dumb in response to everything I say. Maybe that's your goal.

Feminism is absolutely anti-male, not just in a theoretical way. Consider the Duluth model.

When radical feminist aren't decried by moderates, the moderates are giving tacit support to the radicals.

I don't think those are the worst. I personally think that the worst impact feminism has, is how it imbues its adherents with this eternal victim mentality. We have seen this in Donglegate, and Elevatorgate.

Feminists aren't necessarily anti-male, but insofar as feminism claims to be for equality but only advocate for women, they are being inconsistent.

No using a term in the Glossary of Default Definitions under an alternative definition, without providing the alternate definition

Links to threads/comments in other subs must be np-links

No blatant vandalism to the Wiki

No criticisms of feminism or the MRM on Sundays (UTC)

Full Text

So, serious question: Who the fuck do you think you are?

Why do you think you are entitled to some position of authority to dictate what is acceptable discussion in this sub? Why do you believe you have the authority to dictate what constitutes a valid source for discussion material? Seriously, take a deep breath, step back, and leave your inappropriate "moral outrage" at the door. Discuss the validity of the ideas as represented, or kindly hold your tongue until you find a more civil tone.

Men's rights banned me for identifying as a feminist. Then I got 4 messages about how I should be held down and fucked til I respect men. The mrm is indefensible. They don't discuss any issues not addressed by feminism anyway. They aren't pro men their anti women

Alright, I'll hold your hand through this. Don't worry, it's not hard. This is some first semester shit, so don't panic.

1) "Mangina" is, by your metric, analogous to "Uncle Tom."

2) "The phrase "Uncle Tom" has also become an epithet for a person who is slavish and excessively subservient to perceived authority figures, particularly a black person who behaves in a subservient manner to white people; or any person perceived to be a participant in the oppression of their own group."

3) Participation in the oppression of one's own group is impossible without adopting, at the very least, the interests of the oppressing group.

4) Acting in the interests of the feminine is an inherently feminine behaviour.

5) Mangina depicts men who assume female characteristics, including the adoption of feminine interests, as gender traitors.

Of course all of that should be beyond moot point simply because, for fuck's sake, it's a portmanteau of "man" and "vagina" that's used as an insult. Screw subtext, this is 100% text: men who are like vaginas are bad.

Where did you read all that?

Jesus, do you even know what words mean? Water is wet. White Knights rescue maidens in exchange for sex. White Knight is used as a pejorative specifically because it questions the individual's motivations. Its power to question motivation relies on basic assumptions about the interaction, namely that he's doing it to curry favour, generally sexual. That in turn assumes that sex is something that can be won, which assumes that sexual relationships are transactional. By extension White Knight also categorically excludes all other motivations and assumes the White Knight is acting inauthentically, that if sex weren't on the table their stated opinion would be different.

Your weak little "it's still morally wrong" caveats do not absolve you of this.

Broke the following Rules:

No insults against another user's argument

Full Text

Failure to communicate is not rape apology

Then you'd best go back, starting with the matador getting gored by a bull comment, and do some editing so that you say what you mean, because otherwise I'm going to assume you mean what you say, and what you have said is rape apology.

and if you want to level and accusation of that severity you better be prepared to prove it.

I've already proved it. Your apologia is right there for everyone to see. If anything you continue to prove it by jumping through hoop after hoop after hoop to avoid recanting your assertion that a man can get so horny that you'd be more sympathetic to him than to the woman he rapes.

I see two victims in my example, how many do you see?

One, because any other number would lend false credibility to the equivocation of a nasty case of blue balls and a rape. The two are so stratospherically distant in scope, impact, and severity that even trying to compare them is intellectually dishonest.

There is no point where crossing the line from "not a rapist" to "rapist" is defensible. Going "well, it isn't right, but..." is rape apology. Your weak little "it's still morally wrong" caveats do not absolve you of this.

If you do not wish to be seen as a rape apologist then stop apologizing for rape.

I agree, but I don't think they were laughing at the fact that you were sexually assaulted. It seemed like from the context of the discussion they were laughing at the idea that Vancouver is hateful towards men. I'm not saying it was a good comment, I'm just saying I don't think they thought it was funny you were sexually assaulted. I definitely don't think it's funny.

You're an AMR partisan. I'm not surprised you would try to defend that individual's actions. As to being a person who "definitely [doesn't] think it's funny", you're the first from AMR to express that sentiment to me. Something to consider.

Also, laugh as you will, Vancouver was the only place I've encountered violent opposition to the mere idea of a man being sexually assaulted by a woman, and pretty much exclusively from the type of people who should be most involved in prevention and mitigation. Whereas most people try to laugh it off ("hey, at least you got laid right?") or try to change the subject, there's some feminists who have to confront such cognitive dissonance or who harbour enough innate hatred, that they go completely off the rails for a moment. As I had said, having an AMR affiliated "social justice warrior" mock my situation was and is nothing new to me. There's a reason why I didn't mention it to anyone for more than a decade... these days, I mostly blow them off for being the twits they are, although in this case it was a useful example of the sort of "dialogue" AMR engages in.

Nobody in AMR would be upvoted for saying that a person being sexually assaulted is funny, MRA or not.

... and yet it was.

Who is using a "they do it tooooo!" defense here?

Quoth you:

That phrase coming from a MensRights user is painfully ironic. Any kind of reflection or self-policing, any kind of critical word about hatefulness in the MRM, is downvoted, mocked, or called concern trolling.

Translation: They do it toooooooooo!

As I said before, I don't think AMR users should be banned, but don't think that my support for basic free speech means that I think any one of you is speaking in good faith. As a group, you add nothing of value to any conversation.

How can I prove something when the people being closed minded will not see themselves as being 'unwelcoming'? Asking me for proof is stupid, I am not going to waste my time gathering up links when we are supposed to be discussing things. If you do not see it or believe me then I cannot convince you.

"bloodthirsty harpies" is only referring to the maybe 5% of feminists who incite outrage over this because they like the power of political rape accusations for themselves. I'm assigning ulterior motives to a small minority of feminists. I don't see how that could count as "generalizing."

Though maybe in a roundabout way you could interpret my comment as an insult to those in the discussion who are apparently outraged. Especially in combination with the last sentence "that's all this scandal ever was."

I definitely initially read it as an insult against all feminists, but even if they only meant to insult 5% of feminists, some of those 5% are members of the sub, thus they are insulting other users of the sub.

If the user had specified a subgroup of feminists of whom none of which were members of the sub, I would have allowed it. As it stands, I approve of your deletion.

I don't follow. The rule against insults does not prevent discourse on sexual assault. If one of the users here is a sexual assailant, then you wouldn't be allowed to insult them, but you would be allowed to condemn their actions.

Yes? And if another user here was a sexual assailant, then you'd be insulting them, which would be against the Rules. Nobody has yet come out as a sexual assailant yet, so I'd let it slide, but the Rule doesn't prevent condemnation of their actions though. Even if 50% of the users on this sub were sex offenders, you'd be more than welcome to say:

"I fucking hate people who sexually assault others. Everyone should respect the personal boundaries of others, especially sexual boundaries. The trauma that sexual assault can cause is horrible. If I caught someone sexually assaulting someone else, I would pound his fucking ass into the ground."

The idea is that it's like a justice system, designed to protect our users from unfair attacks on their character. In the real world, even if a man murders your family, you still aren't allowed to murder him back.

I think some feminists who took that position believed it was an attack on them.

This in itself does not make something an insult

I could very well believe someone calling me a masticator is an insult it does not make it the truth. Though in this case I do believe even if the poster did not break the rules objectively they did intend it as an insult to certain members of this sub.

No not at all :) I just want others to understand that I am only a few days into modding so I will make mistakes.

The other new mod /u/bromanteau argued to give leniency but to still keep the comment deleted. I may end up going with this. It is right on the edge here.

My policy is when it comes to an argument coming off as insulting but I can see it being made in good faith, I leave it. However this is on the line. It obviously wasn't in good faith of those he was talking about, but it comes off as an attack on people I can see may not intend to attack.

Also the other mod agrees with me that it would be bad if there were more comments like this on either side. Comments like it could easily be used to attack others by taking advantage of flaws in the rules.

Like saying: "Sexist pigs don't like to own up to their actions." in reference to financial abortions. I would want to delete. It attacks members of the sub that side a certain way.

However I want people to be able to criticize non sub members, god knows I have made my opinion on some clear.

Part of the reason I wrote the "bloodthirsty harpies" comment was because the rules leave quite a few loopholes open, I've seen quite a few veiled or roundabout insults, typically from AMR types, that don't breal the letter of the rules but probably the spirit.

Not the op but I would have to note that he never denoted who "Bloodthirsty harpies" are, he doesn't even imply it at all past "don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot."

So the only people he is insulting is people who "don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot" and is not specifically an insult at anyone in this sub. IMO it probably doesn't directly violate the subs rules, though it does seem to skirt the intent of the rules a bit.

The MRM claims to be deeply concerned with the plight of male victims of sexual assault, abuse, rape, exploitation, &c.

The MRM claims to be deeply concerned with the prevalence of sexual crimes committed in prisons.

So why is this even a remotely controversial subject?

These aren't subjects that the MRM already has in its sights? These aren't the kinds of toxic speech that the MRM would like to see purged from society because of their use to degrade and marginalize those who are already vulnerable?

Are you fucking serious?

The fact that this is even a question, "should we ban rape jokes and rape apologia?", blows my mind.

Human rights movement? What a fucking joke.

And look at this shit: THIS SHOULD BE THE LEAST CONTROVERSIAL MODERATION SUBJECT IMAGINABLE, AND IT'S GETTING DOWNVOTED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE!

So how about you, you know, sort out your basic ideological priorities before running a debate sub where you pretend to be a legitimate social movement. Apparently you're still working on "rape is bad" stage of educating your members.

Seriously, this is laughable shit. There aren't enough words to describe how fucking bush league the moderation is if "golly guys, do you think rape jokes are okay for our debate sub?" is even on the table. This is why no one takes you seriously.

Men are killed, women set free, and still women manage to be the larger victims.

If you're going to say something as fucking stupid as "You may consider this splitting hairs but your post really reads like you're upset that women aren't dying." then I am going to call you out on that.

it is because arguments like what you are using are somehow accepted and feminists aren't willing to waste the time to wade through it.

Broke the following Rules:

No insults against other members of the sub

No insults against another user's argument

Full Text

You start with a false assumption, that financial abandonment = same rights and freedoms. Then when people explain why this is a false idea, you come back with

It's pretty clear to me that it was a simple question of "should men have the same rights and freedoms as women" and the answer was a restounding "no".

No. Enough. There is a reason that this sub has turned into another MRA circlejerk and it is because arguments like what you are using are somehow accepted and feminists aren't willing to waste the time to wade through it.

I think feminists discuss rape in much the same way that Republicans discuss communism. Constantly, loudly, and with little attention to fact :P

And protecting self-admitted rapists from being called such because it's "insulting" while banning others from calling that person a rapist, is frankly disgusting

Has this actually happened? Seriously, I went and looked at the thread. I can't find anyone who was banned just for saying "hey, this makes you a rapist" - the only bans are of posts clearly intended to insult.

Are you advocating the ability to call people rapists, or are you advocating the ability to verbally abuse people you don't like? You've already got the first.

When you consider the feelings of someone who admits to raping, over those of victims of rape and sexual assault, you are not a human rights group.

This isn't a human rights group. It's a debate forum. And when you consider someone's feelings over the ability to debate tricky subjects, you're not a debate forum. You're a hugbox.

You'll get it now. Dude. Wall of text. You won't read your posts, you expect me to read that?
I DO NOT CARE whether you believe you said you didn't value my opinion or not. If I post the links, you'll insist with your dying breath that's not what you meant. Fine. You changed your mind, or I hallucinated it, or I made it up to smear you. Whatever.

Ignorance is bliss. In the future, don't make a claim without being able to back it up. If I said something, it shouldn't be hard to prove it to me.

I wasn't making fun of your intro post. That was perfectly nice. I'm calling you out for the terrible stuff you've said and how loathe you are to take responsibility for it. I admit that I guessed at your age much earlier, but I didn't want to say anything until it was confirmed. The impulsive, provocative behavior, the lack of empathy, your certainty, the anchoring on what you call rationality, etc... these traits are not uncommon in youth, and honestly, it's really a good thing you aren't older, because a thirty yo acting like as you have would be beyond hope. People get humbler with age, that's just how it is.

Argue the points not the character. Someone my age shouldn't be having to tell you this. We can both talk all day about what we think the negative character traits of each other are, or we can stick to the point themselves. You seem to keep choosing the former and it baffles me. Not all 21 years olds are alike, and if you knew me in person you'd laugh at that notion of comparing me to common behavior of normal 21 year olds.

BTW -- if you can link to a post of yours in the past month where you concede a key part of your argument, I'll ask you about your utilitarianism. I think you haven't recognized yet that you are in fact arguing completely from emotion and stung pride. I won't engage with you on your rape hilarity because it would kill you at this point to acknowledge error. If you can show me you can gracefully concede, then I'll trust you to discuss it.

I concede a minor point in a very long argument a couple weeks ago, I don't think that'll convince you though. I only decide to argue things that I am very confident that I am right in. It would be natural for me to not concede points very often. If you want to go through my posting history and find somewhere that i'm clearly wrong, yet continue to argue irrationally, then I'd welcome that type of criticism granted it provided to be true. Almost all of my arguments in the last month have solely been about utilitarianism. You can't prove, or reasonably show utilitarianism has been wrong, so where could I possibly provide you with this proof that I can gracefully concede. Besides, it seems like you're alluding that you're so confident in being right, that if I'm reasonable enough to concede, then it's a certain fact I will, if you will simply show me the light. Which is absolutely ridiculous because you'd have to reasonably show the quality life of the world is most likely to be lower. If you really think that this is something you can do then i don't think you understand all the factors that are in play here. You have to show, that not only in the next 100 years, but in the entire history of life, that me choosing to make this rape joke makes the world a worse place. You also have to show that a lot of emotions lead to negative quality of life. These are insane tasks that cannot be accomplished, yet you seem pretty confident in your ability to do so. Very questionable, to say the least.

As far as arguing from emotions and stung pride, umm, sure? If that makes you feel better. In terms of quality life of the world, you may benefit from believing that I'm this snotty nosed, slacking, 21 year old pretentious brat, who is simply appalled at the mere thought of being wrong. That's fine. I'm not interested in what you think of me, or how you interpret my thoughts. I'm here to provoke my own intelligent thought, your speculation as to what my character may be doesn't do any of that.

And if you're not here in good faith, that's fine, just say so. If I take time to respond to points you make and you don't bother to read them, simply because they are too long, then it seems like you're not here in good faith.

Now I'm going to bed, and I have a tennis match tmrw, but when i get back tomorrow afternoon, you better be prepared to be responded to!

That is correct in that many circumstances ignorance can result in a higher quality of life. If that's grounds for a personal attack then I'd like much more specific rules on what constitutes a personal attack. If we're going by what could be found offensive then I could report every single interaction i've had. Certainly that would be unproductive and not improve the quality life to he world.

Recap for the new users- hokesone, an amr mod, was banned for overt hostility and rape accusation. Naturally, amr reactionaries did what they do best, and disingenuously assumed this is now rapist haven.

Magically, a new account with the flair "rapist" appears and starts making shitposts that are technically within the guidelines of this sub, that were not a problem or even a thing up until this point. It also pretends to have an mra viewpoint while repeatedly circle-jerking amr posts. Now, amr posters are filling another thread with terrible posts and using sockpuppet accounts to upvotespam one another.

I've said it before, and i'll say it again- you cannot have a good faith discourse with people who primarily operate on bad faith trolling. This is exactly what happened with the mensrights subreddit with false flag accounts, and the signs that it is happening here are identical.

They only view your good faith as a tool to manipulate in order to further their extremism.

At some point here you should actually read what I wrote, instead of what you think I wrote. Regardless it did result in a productive conversation. You didn't take part in the productive conversation, but perhaps next time you will.

At some point here you should actually read what I wrote, instead of what you think I wrote. Regardless it did result in a productive conversation. You didn't take part in the productive conversation, but perhaps next time you will.

At the end of the day though, it doesn't really matter if an argument "partially convinced" somebody if they're still going to go out there and rape someone.

I mean, here's one of the comments after being 'convinced'

You couldn't just have sex with someone that doesn't tell you no?

I could, but why would I? The women who did tell me no is still consenting

I think being frank about what this thought pattern and behavior is, is important. We may not be able to convince the person saying it by doing so, but walking on eggshells to avoid saying what this is doesn't help anyone. Frankly, I'm unconvinced that we can make somebody listen who refuses to acknowledge a 'no'.

What we might be able to do is make it very clear what this behavior is and why it is unacceptable to somebody else reading over the thread.

In a public forum like this, a reply to a post isn't just for that individual's benefit, it's for the benefit of the other posters and all of the silent lurkers as well. Unless we have some evidence that others positions are similarly "hardened" by putting an accurate name to this behavior, I'm not sure if we should let our sample of one dictate the terms for everyone else.

Can you explain to me how "all" of this is an insult? The vast majority of the post doesn't even make reference to a particular user and I didn't even call them out by name OR call them any names.

I was speaking in general terms about why I don't think it's important to tiptoe around calling rape what it is.

The only thing I can read as being potentially insulting here is the implication that the unnamed user might rape somebody, but I wasn't speaking of a particular "they", I was talking generally and then gesturing to a specific example to illustrate my point.

I realize I've been granted leniency, but it's absurd that this counts as an insult.

I know you refuse to consider that I may be right, probably because you're very angry about it. That's your failing, but biasing the whole sub over your own prejudices effects everyone here.

Broke the following Rules:

No insults against other members of the sub

Full Text

Come on, ta. Things aren't black and white. People are very complicated, and you can't treat them as abstract rational actors. I know you refuse to consider that I may be right, probably because you're very angry about it. That's your failing, but biasing the whole sub over your own prejudices effects everyone here.

If you look over those threads, almost everyone who flipped out came from AMR. Getting very angry is the point of almost every post over there. They're actually quite pleased about their new bans. Before getting banned they were busy mocking you for not banning them.

In terms of pleasing that audience, I don't think you could do much better.

In terms of productive discussion, all those angry posts in both threads drowned out the more positive and constructive comments. They've managed to get banned by repeatedly and intentionally violating rules 1 and 2, which leaves that much more breathing space for everyone else to have civil discussions. Including discussion on controversial topics.

In terms of your proposed rule, especially as it concerns the recent threads, consider the difference between your two examples: No doesn't really mean no" in the context of sex/rape. and Let's discuss why people might say 'no doesn't really mean no'. The key difference is that one includes an opinion on the topic, while the other presumes that very opinion is wrong. You're eliminating one side of the discussion. A discussion, I might add, that you personally need to have.

For example, here's a thread I'm engaged in right now. The OP posted something I thought was fairly ignorant, so my first reply was a parody of what they said was acceptable. Could I have written an essay on why their views were hypocritical? Sure. But posting what I did was 1) illustrating my point in an easily understandable way 2) much shorter and 3) amusing to write.

I'm not trying to be a dick about this because I agree with you that the goal is coming to a greater understanding, but I'm very skeptical of hard line rules. The world's a pretty gray place, y'know?

That wasn't an insult to their argument, but rather an explanation to another user in another thread as to why I posted in the manner I did. If this isn't permissible, then it's pretty much impossible to say for what reasons you disagree with someone's opinion/argument. If I were to type out a paragraph on how their interpretation was flawed because they lack empathy for others, it'd still boil down to "they're ignorant."

Also, as far as insults go "fairly ignorant" is extremely tame. Especially given that its context was so removed from the original commenter.

That wasn't an insult to their argument, but rather an explanation to another user in another thread as to why I posted in the manner I did. If this isn't permissible, then it's pretty much impossible to say for what reasons you disagree with someone's opinion/argument.

You could say there is more to it than that or it is incorrect.

Also, as far as insults go "fairly ignorant" is extremely tame. Especially given that its context was so removed from the original commenter.

Yes but it still broke the rules. The mods have discussed this before. If A comment is responding to one that breaks the rules and they themselves break the rules it is still deleted. It is why we didn't just ignore the 4 pages in modque.

It would if that was the actual post that got the user banned. Since it's not and the actual post was:

You get that you just admitted to being a literal fucking rapist right?

I would have to say that my point still stands and you are allowed to call rape, rape. In fact other users were able to say just that without being insulting or getting banned.

Furthermore, your willingness to misrepresent the facts to further your point makes it difficult for me to assume that you are posting in good faith. That being the case I don't see any further benefit to either us by continuing this discussion. So you have a nice day. =)

The way you've conducted yourself with these jokes has lowered the level of respect and trust with which I view your comments

Broke the following Rules:

No insults against another user's argument

Full Text

Maybe my dog begs for food because he's a tiny alien who is engaged in a behavioral experiment far beyond my ability to comprehend. Or maybe he does it because he's a dog and he likes food. I'm going with Occam's Razor.

The way you've conducted yourself with these jokes has lowered the level of respect and trust with which I view your comments. It is a shame, because I thought that before this, you had some interesting things to say. It's unrealistic to ask people to divorce their reaction to previous posts from current ones when judging quality. You're now that guy who made a bunch of shitty rape jokes and then tried to attribute noble motives to them.

You and I do not have a clean history but I do try hard to be both a good mod and make a place for the sub to grow. However I will make mistakes. Many of these comments are grey. As I have told dingbatman please do not be dissuaded from bringing incorrect modding to my attention. I fully encourage users to argue against a deletion.

From this comment it seems like you think I either feel that I think you hold a grudge or you think that I might hold a grudge.

Honestly until you just reminded me I had forgotten about that incident nor did I really care about it at the time other than to clarify my position. I think your immediate actions were highly biased but that does not mean I think you are not a good mod, I just think you are like everyone else, human.

Again I fully apologize, such actions were inappropriate. Considering it was one of our first discussions I assumed it would be remembered. So I didn't want such things to discourage you. Thank you for understanding. :)

This is a sub about debates in gender justice. Someone who has admitted to actions that constitute rape shouldn't be given a platform to proudly promote rape. I would argue that any rapist has an innate hatred of women (or men, in the case of male victims, but we're talking about OP here.) How does such bias belong in a gender debate forum?

Broke the following Rules:

No insults against other members of the sub

Full Text

This is a sub about debates in gender justice. Someone who has admitted to actions that constitute rape shouldn't be given a platform to proudly promote rape. I would argue that any rapist has an innate hatred of women (or men, in the case of male victims, but we're talking about OP here.) How does such bias belong in a gender debate forum?

Ugh, I just took a look at GMP. It's feminism with a minor focus on men, judging from the article titles. I suppose your view of GMP and similar works as "scope creep" is a plausible (and more charitable) interpretation of the facts than calling it sabotage, though the results are catastrophic either way.

rejecting a movement wholesale is a similarly flawed action.

You're probably right, but feminists routinely deny the legitimacy of the MRM with comments like "what about the menz?" Getting MRAs to accept the legitimacy of feminism is a tough sell so long as they're subjected to comments like that.

More simply, feminism is a good framework for addressing problems in a society where men are always dominant, the MRM is a good framework for addressing problems in a society where men are always disposable

Aren't they good tools for societies where X is mostly Y?

First, we should not ideologically commit to one movement for every issue any more than a carpenter should only use a hammer.

I agree. I expect that most MRA/egalitarians will agree. I think this goes against the culture of feminism, however. As such I think your post is aimed mostly at feminists.

I will argue that feminism [addresses some] men's issues... I think a lot of MRAs are somewhat aware of this, and it may actually drive the resentment of feminism present in the movement

Seriously? I'll lay this one out for you simply. Men aren't offended that feminists want to help. They're offended that feminists pretend to help while actually sabotaging any effort to help men. GMP is a great example; telling men they're bad and need to be more feminine is not helping anyone. Telling your 5 year old boy to be very very careful touching girls because he might rape them is not helping anyone. Note I'm talking about general sentiment here, since you brought it up.

Finally, this appears to be a critique of feminism veiled as a critique of both movements. I think people here will see right through that. Each movement has its shortcomings, but they aren't the same shortcomings. The MRA group is far less likely to agree with all MRM issues. That's just not the type of background those people have, nor is it the discussion style they're accustomed to.

I am opposed to MRAs because they represent loud pushy voices on the internet whose ideas are shallow and fallacious and whose values are morally abhorrent to me.

Far from coming from some pre-existing stereotype (never heard of an MRA all through feminist indoctrination [childhood, college, grad school], not until I got on reddit anyway), my disgust with MRAs comes from reading their thoughts and ideas online. I don't have to go much further than the MRA subreddit and read the top ten posts to see my views reinforced: the MRA movement is a hate movement.

Knowing who I am, where I stand and how I understand the difference between true and false and right and wrong isn't called "tribalism" where I come from, it is called self-awareness and critical thinking.

No using a term in the Glossary of Default Definitions under an alternative definition, without providing the alternate definition

Links to threads/comments in other subs must be np-links

No blatant vandalism to the Wiki

No criticisms of feminism or the MRM on Sundays (UTC)

Full Text

The first part of his post is pretty much true: While I can't speak for everyone in AMR I can tell you that I personally have given up on attempting to debate MRAs and consider it a waste of time to try and depict the MRM as a counter or a complement to feminism.

To me, the MRM has had its opportunity to create a legitimate social movement, and has continually squandered that opportunity. It has no scholars, only a lot of heated rhetoric, and has proven time and again to be terminally credulous to trolls who say what it wants to hear without necessary critical examination. It also seems to really want to blame feminism for phenomena that clearly predate feminism's existence as a social and academic force - things like the draft and higher workplace fatalities for men. Reason takes a backseat to petty envy and that renders constructive dialog impossible. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

As for the idea that AMR doesn't promote serious discourse or have constructive discussion, I gotta disagree with that. We have good discussions over there all the time, we just choose to exclude MRAs from those discussions. At heart it's a circle-jerk, though, and I don't think any other regular posters there would disagree with that assessment.

The first part of his post is pretty much true: While I can't speak for everyone in AMR I can tell you that I personally have given up on attempting to debate MRAs and consider it a waste of time to try and depict the MRM as a counter or a complement to feminism.

To me, the MRM has had its opportunity to create a legitimate social movement, and has continually squandered that opportunity. It has no scholars, only a lot of heated rhetoric, and has proven time and again to be terminally credulous to trolls who say what it wants to hear without necessary critical examination. It also seems to really want to blame feminism for phenomena that clearly predate feminism's existence as a social and academic force - things like the draft and higher workplace fatalities for men. Reason takes a backseat to petty envy and that renders constructive dialog impossible. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

As for the idea that AMR doesn't promote serious discourse or have constructive discussion, I gotta disagree with that. We have good discussions over there all the time, we just choose to exclude MRAs from those discussions. At heart it's a circle-jerk, though, and I don't think any other regular posters there would disagree with that assessment.

But your own criticisms of feminism within /r/mensrights doesn't require that because... you hold yourself to a lower standard there, I guess?

Broke the following Rules:

No personal attacks

Full Text

Okay, just so we're clear: it wouldn't be valid to criticize the MRM within this subreddit without a study, because you've decided that's the appropriate standard. But your own criticisms of feminism within /r/mensrights doesn't require that because... you hold yourself to a lower standard there, I guess?

I won't bother to go through your post history to pull out all the generalisms you've made about feminists here. Instead, I'll just refer anyone who criticizes feminism to you, and you can explain to them how a study is required.

I'm all for equal rights, but once you start humoring people like that, you're getting into crazyville.

Full Text

Really now? I find that hard to swallow. Sure there might be some cases, but it'd probably be just as easy to prove 'correct' men who think they're animals than men who think they're women. I'm all for equal rights, but once you start humoring people like that, you're getting into crazyville. This is part of the extremist MRA rhetoric: that we have to accept insane Feminist theories about being able to choose your gender.

I'm all for equal rights, but once you start humoring people like that, you're getting into crazyville.

Broke the following Rules:

* case deletion no promoting prejudice

Full Text

Really now? I find that hard to swallow. Sure there might be some cases, but it'd probably be just as easy to prove 'correct' men who think they're animals than men who think they're women. I'm all for equal rights, but once you start humoring people like that, you're getting into crazyville. This is part of the extremist MRA rhetoric: that we have to accept insane Feminist theories about being able to choose your gender.

However men are also incredibly disposable in the state of nature because if you kill ten men then you can still produce the same amount of children for the next generation but if you kill ten women then that's around 30 children that won't be in the next crop of young-lings.

Actually, this "disposable male" idea is horseshit.

If males were disposable, Nature wouldn't waste its time and few males would be born.

You'd find, say, 5 males born for every 95 females.

Nature, instead, has tens of thousands of species in which it's roughly 50 males and 50 females.

Is there a reason why any time somebody disagrees with you, you shift the goalposts rather than replying to the actual point?

Broke the following Rules:

No insults against other members of the sub

No insults against another user's argument

Full Text

Is there a reason why any time somebody disagrees with you, you shift the goalposts rather than replying to the actual point? It makes it basically impossible to actually debate you so I'm not entirely sure why you post here at all.

You are advocating a plan in which men can just randomly spread their sperm around, with no care at all for their own children conceived, and arguing that WOMEN are not responsible??? The same WOMEN who would be raising the children that the men don't give a shit about??? Hilarious.

Broke the following Rules:

No insults against another user's argument

Full Text

You are advocating a plan in which men can just randomly spread their sperm around, with no care at all for their own children conceived, and arguing that WOMEN are not responsible??? The same WOMEN who would be raising the children that the men don't give a shit about??? Hilarious.

Except that is not the way it would happen.

Here's the deal. There is no such thing as choice and full prior knowledge before a woman gets pregnant. Pregnancy is a game changing life changing biological event. You might as well go to elementary schools and have third graders sign vows that they will never have sex. Biologically, it makes about as much sense.

Biologically, you think expecting men to not have PIV sex if they don't want children is unreasonable and too great of a burden. Sexual desire is too strong to limit to only procreation. Think about this. No one ever ran into a burning building to have sex. Parents do it to save children so often it doesn't even make the news. That's what you're dealing with. If sexual desire is a white water river, parental instinct is the ocean.

Which is why to actual parents all these arguments about LPS seem juvenile and trivial. Like third graders signing vows to never have sex. Maternal instinct might kick in quicker and harder than paternal instinct, but 99.9 percent of those idiot men who signed that paper would horribly regret it when they could never see their children. The courts would never be able to effectively enforce it, just like courts could never enforce a vow to not have sex. It is ludicrous to even consider it. You can't stop the ocean.

Don't bother making a false equivalence and then pretending you're too above the fray to back it up.

Broke the following Rules:

No insults against other members of the sub

Full Text

Don't bother making a false equivalence and then pretending you're too above the fray to back it up. You'll find nothing AMR does even remotely comparable to what Elam and co. do.

Posting a terrorist manifesto which calls for the firebombing of police stations and court houses and instructs readers how to make explosives in their "Activism" section for about a year (until the Boston Marathon incident).

Urging the acquittal of all rapists, no exceptions. More activism.

Doxxing people, and advocating more doxxing. Including, doxxing innocent people and doxxing people for "bigotry" which might amount to nothing more than a tweet Elam disagrees with.

False rape accuse-a-thon.

Hate speech, like the claims that women do not have moral agency.

Suggesting women who were raped while unconscious are sluts, and their rapists ought to get nothing more than a stern talking to as punishment.

Arguing that it is good to beat women, and women should learn to take a punch. Aslo arguing women should be grateful for sexual harassment.

... That's for starters, and not even touching any of the "satire" which is used to express their sincere beliefs but in language even they realize is so objectionable that they want plausible deniability distancing themselves from it.

Please by all means find the AMR users advocating violence, participating in campaigns of harassment, spreading cut-and-dry hate speech... and all as their regular business, that they stand by as their best accomplishments, not just some fringe, out-of-context, cherry picked troll.

So what you're saying is that the youtube video of the documentary set in Sweden (or Norway, I forget) where the guy speaks directly to professors of sociology and anthropology about gender studies isn't evidence of anything.

It's clear that you're practicing underhanded tactics by ignoring any evidence I have as moot.

This is... shaming men for doing anything towards women (and women doing anything to men on top! Double shame!).

I don't think there's necessarily supposed to be shame for being sexual involved here.

This sort of "sex only during marriage and only to have babies" is everything the most anti-sex rabid radfem could want: No sex with men at all, except when strictly necessary.

Catholic sexual ethics are very often misunderstood. In the case of the former, sex only within the confines of a marriage, this is correct. The latter however, "only to have babies" is not, and is a straw-Catholic at best. Being open to life doesn't mean that sex must always result in life, only that the life-giving act can't be deliberately closed to the possiblity of life-giving. I understand that for those who are unclear, this may seem confusing, and it does require a nuanced understanding of ethics. Sufficie it to say that nothing, nothing about such arrangements are at all compatible with radical feminism. I'll try to give you a for-instance. For-instance, while I'm not sure that I share this view, I've heard it said that at least one caon lawyer has stated that spousal rape doesn't exist. In Biblical terms, a man and wife are said to become "one flesh." She is him, and he is her. Because they are "one flesh" it's impossible to have rape, because it's raping yourself, and it's impossible to rape yourself. I confess, I'm not really persuaded, but I do understand the statement.

In any case, because the Church holds that it is grave matter to refuse the legitimate requests for intercourse from one's lawful spouse, I would argue that a kind of blanket-consent to intercourse exists. This flies completely in the face of radical feminism, I don't see how it could be otherwise.

That is the most expansive definition for "rape" I could imagine, because it is quite literally "All sex is wrong".

Really? When God will literally send a person to Hell for refusing the legitimate requests for intercourse from one's spouse?

On top of that... its been tried. All that "save it till marriage" style sex-ed has been shown to be the worst sort of sex-ed, because it doesn't teach about sex.

I don't think that it has actually been tried, because it's rarely, if ever, been done within the context of nuanced understanding of Catholic sexual ethics. It's always secularized in some way, and doesn't make allowances for the overall sexual integration as mandated by the Catechism. In that regard, it's actually not being properly attempted, and will undoubtedly fail.

Kids want to have sex, because sex is fun. You realize that there is a reason that "X is the most fun you can have with your clothes on!" is a saying? Its because once you get your clothes off, there isn't much that compares with sex for fun. This will just make them feel shameful about their natural urges to get their groove on.

Shame isn't entirely unproductive, or not useful in all circumstances, but again. From what I understand, these programs do not make any effort to incorporate sexuality in the whole person, but try to keep it locked in a box. As such, the very assumption upon which it rests is flawed. And, that assumption doesn't match what is stated in the Catechism. Therefore, of course it fails; it's not being done in a constructive way.

Kids are going to have sex, because sex is fun and curiosity and hormones and whatever else. Contraception at least lets them not fuck up their whole lives because of teenage urges. You say that because of contraception, young men will internalize a message which is hostile to them. Your message seems much worse to me.

I thikn that's based on a very tenuous assumption, but be that as it may, pick your poison. Either we let feminism continue to errode the rights of all, or we make a sincere attempt to put sexuality back into a necessarily reproductive context, and all that goes with it. All that you've expressed here is confirmed the original conclusion, that we're unwilling to face the unpleasant reality that sex is only ever safe when it is done within a marriage, and as such, we're unwilling to heal ourselves.

This is 100% my stance on circumcision. Benefits outweigh the risks but it should not be universal and the final choice is up to the parents. I don't know why you linked this general page but this is the paragraph there.

As for the second source I'm not agreeing to the credibility especially when the issue is in the url name.

That third one should be fucking NSFW and looks like some third party porn site. Thanks for letting that pop up on my work computer asshole. I'm done with you.

Sorry, but I call BS. Feminists seem to overwhelming think that male genital mutilation is no big deal. Feminists have no respect for bodily integrity of anyone born male. Feminism is an evil and sexist hate group.

I am accusing AMR posters of being sexist, of supporting circumcision, of wanting to deny healthcare to men, and of thinking that it isn't wrong for a wife to abuse her husband.
Broke the following Rules:

No insults against other members of the sub

Full Text

No. Not until you answer me.

I am accusing AMR posters of being sexist, of supporting circumcision, of wanting to deny healthcare to men, and of thinking that it isn't wrong for a wife to abuse her husband.

I also know from talking to people who had the procedure that their sensitivity remained the same, so the only people who'd know for sure tell me that they haven't lost any sensitive bit.

Once again, no they wouldn’t. They would’ve had problem foreskins- such as phimosis, which would have limited their feeling. The men I know who had it done later, one in person, most on reddit, say it felt “different, like less sensitive, but better” which would fit in with that narrative. It would also make more sense than that the nerves that were removed weren’t sensitive or whatever gobbledygook you were trying to use to explain how the removal of nerves =/= the removal of ability to feel with said nerves. If it was just asking about sexual function, like the things you sourced, they probably would have reported no change.

How many men who still had their normal, healthy, functional foreskins did you talk to? Or are they biased because they haven’t had half their dick skin chopped off- and stupidly don’t understand it’s a useless “callous” stupid fucks- think they enjoy it when their partner sexually stimulates it- lies! All lies!

know you are protecting yourself, because otherwise you would be comfortable dealing with the real arguments against circumcision, and accept the arguments for why they don't agree with circumcision. Someone who is genuinely comfortable accepts reality.

Broke the following Rules:

No personal attacks

Full Text

Like I said before, "If you think I'm lulling myself into a false sense of security, then I hate to break it to you, but you're mistaken. I don't get anything out of this mindset."

... I think you misunderstand... I know you are protecting yourself, because otherwise you would be comfortable dealing with the real arguments against circumcision, and accept the arguments for why they don't agree with circumcision. Someone who is genuinely comfortable accepts reality. I accept reality, I am more or less okay about being circumcised, but I also wish I wasn't and resent the fact that the procedure has robbed me of some sensitivity I will never know. (Don't believe me? Go ask a guy who is uncircumcised to roll down his foreskin and see how long he can stand it before the chafing from his clothes is intolerable.)

They think an outcry in the US is warranted is because they think they're on the same level as girls who get their clits cut off in Africa.

You keep strawmanning because it makes it easier to deal with. If you were truly comfortable you wouldn't need to do this.

So they want an outcry over here too, right? That's fair, right? Well how do you think they came to that conclusion?
They think an outcry in the US is warranted is because they think they're on the same level as girls who get their clits cut off in Africa. No one would say "but people care about FGM in Africa!" If they thought there was a difference in circumstance or severity, or thought that those differences mattered.

Most childhood genital mutilation in the world is performed on boys, its instutionalised, its prescribed, and even considered to be a legitimate aesthetic preference. FGM as bad as it can be (not all FGM is the same) most of the world banned it pretty much as soon as we heard about it. No arguments are ever good enough to support FGM. Its not like anti-FGM say, 'well, if you only cut the labia off, then its okay.

Because so much male circumcision is performed in the world and how comparatively rare FGM is I would even be willing to bet that the number of deaths and botched circumcisions outnumber the number of girls victims of FGM, or at very least come very close. If even one girl can be found that has been a victim of FGM we have a outcry, but most people dont know about the baby boys that have died from it, or lost their penis' in whole or in part, not counting ones who have been permanently damaged by anyones standards. We just don't really care about boys, as an MRA you should know that, and you should already know plenty of examples of this. But because you are so emotionally invested in defending circumcision you can't see the same thing applies here.

It ain't a strawman if it's true.

And it isnt, so it is.

There's no "empowering" going on in here. It's just a bunch of "poor us". This is no different than how feminists warp girls into thinking they're the victims of everything.

It says you are an MRA in the flair, you should listen to yourself. You sound exactly like an anti-MRA about any other topic. The only difference is that you are emotionally invested in this one. It is a wonderful example of how we care more about women and girls than boys and men, but as an MRA so emotionally invested in this you just can't accept it. You have to erect absurd caricatured strawman even when talking to people that are specifically not using them, and use the same shaming tactics feminists use.

You know what I hate more than someone that disagrees with me? Its inconsistency in someones position. The second thing I hate is when they disagree, but wont say they disagree with the arguments as they are presented but rather the exaggerated strawmen they choose to attack.

I'll tell you a short story... I once was talking to a sex worker about her job, she seemed genuinely very happy doing what she was doing. She said it was the perfect job for her, she loved having lots of sex, even if she wasnt getting paid for it she'd have sex, that she was so highly sexed she would walk around with vibrating eggs inside her when her friends were around, and she wasnt very picky, so why not get paid a lot of money for it? This girl said she even had a degree in IT. However she then said something interesting... she said she was not a prostitute, she was as escort, she gets paid for her time whereas a prostitute gets paid to have sex. This... is not dealing with reality. She had based her self esteem around her work on NOT being a "prostitute". If someone came along and toppled such a shakey piece of logic and she realised what she did as an escort and what a prostitute did were really the same thing, then she would realise that not only had she been a prostitute for all these years but is still a prostitute right now, then that would likely have a strong negative effect on her self esteem. How much of a negative effect depends on how much she really didnt want to be considered a prostitute.

What she needed to do is to accept reality fully, so that no one could come along and potentially knock down a house of cards such as this. You Sir have built a house of cards around circumcision, its so important to you that to combat this you like anyone else which have beliefs based on similar grounds, must come up with more increasingly illogical and irrational justifications to be used as defenses. Its also why people who have come from a deeply religious family can go into such a deep depression if they lose their faith in their religion, whereas someone from a secular family won't hurt at all. The former person had a house of cards that was easily knocked down, which is why it ended in more trauma.

becoming clearer and clearer you’re generally clueless about this subject,

Broke the following Rules:

No personal attacks

Full Text

No, the foreskin is a part of the penis. There are not more nerves in a small part than in the whole. That doesn't even make sense.

Actually, as far a I understand, the foreskin is the covering of the penis, considered as a separate organ, much like the vulva is not technically part of the vagina. This is nit-picking and doesn’t really matter for our purposes though.

I take it your “sources” are stuff you just sort of thought up. The foreskin is about half the skin on your genitals, not just “a little bit”. It’s becoming clearer and clearer you’re generally clueless about this subject, but more than willing to spout the common misconceptions you too have about genital mutilation, while demanding cited sources from your opponents.

I cannot give you a single source, because when I first heard these numbers I searched them in a panic and every link I got said 20,000. Wikipedia doesn’t say 20,000, but does point out it is highly innervated.

That you think, that anybody could think that we have a culture where rape is acceptable is indicative to me of the idea that people really do have to be educated out of their common sense.

Broke the following Rules:

No insults against other members of the sub

Full Text

England.

That explains a very great deal. Unfortunately, that's exactly what happens when we adopt policies of reverse onus. That you agree is shocking, and I think indicative of the threat that feminism represents to western civilization.

Indeed, Magna Carta recognizes the right to self-defence. It's a pity that England has gone so far in the wrong direction.

What data? You realize you can't just say 'the data' and assume I'm going to know what you're talking about.

And it comes back to: why do women have to alter their lifestyle to avoid a crime?

We all alter our lifestyles to avoid crime. I have an alarm system in my home for precisely this reason. Why is it an affront to propose that people be given the option to defend themselves, should the need arise?

Here's more on the subject:

This article is opinion, and not evidence of anything.

It is victim blaming to assume that if someone gets drunk, it is partially their fault for being raped.

That's not what I said. What I said was that it's a known risk factor. Limiting exposure to risk factors is therefore a good way to avoid negative things.

You're deliberately framing the victim as the actor in your quote too, which really is victim blaming.

So, your solution then is for rapists to control themselves. By changing the culture in such a way where rape isn't acceptable. Except, that it's a highly stigmatized crime, which disproportionately punishes men, when they're found guilty, and is even at times acknowledged that the accusation alone is used as a weapon to silence and gain compliance on the part of some unscrupulous women.

That you think, that anybody could think that we have a culture where rape is acceptable is indicative to me of the idea that people really do have to be educated out of their common sense.

Most men don't give a fuck about circumcision one way or the other. I say OP is just particularly sensitive.

Broke the following Rules:

No insults against other members of the sub

Full Text

OP is in the minority. 80% of men in the US are circumcised and this issue is never brought up, ever. It's not like circumcised men don't have a voice, either. Most people in the capital building are circumcised men. CEOs of American companies are circumcised men. Are you telling me that the people who have the biggest platforms are being "silenced" whenever they talk abour circumcision? Or does circumcision just not impact their lives?

Most men don't give a fuck about circumcision one way or the other. I say OP is just particularly sensitive.

Ah. Well then. You've done an excellent job illustrating the point yourself. This, coexists with this.

Sure it sucks, but the fact is that people think that we should protect the accused of rape at the cost of rape victims, which is silly because the fact is that false accusation is rare. Your anecdote doesn't help anyone.

(emphasis added)

I don't think it fruitful to speak with anyone who thinks that the essential protections of the criminal justice system are "silly." It's kinda funny, we Catholics tend to get stigmatized for starting witchhunts. You seem to have no problem wishing to start one of your own.

I object. There's nothing personal about this, and it's not a statement of fact, but appearance based on the user's own statements. That's the meaning of the word "seem" in this context. If I am not allowed to propose reasonable conclusions, based on statements in evidence, how can there be any reasonable discussion?

You can argue a stance without attacking a persons character having the word "seem" does not mean you didn't try to associate them with it.

There are some people you can not argue with and there I would suggest you state you no longer wish to argue. However if you wish to debate them you can only argue on their stances not what you think they are.

It's not a reflection on their character, but their own statements. Pushing for reverse onus is, in point of fact tantamount to a witch hunt, that's why the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of western jurisprudence.

Not only that, but circumcision removes the frenulum, the most sensitive part of the penis.

You are so ignorant. You know more than all of the lives experiences of men circumcised as adults? Or who restores their foreskin? How do you explain the fact that men who restore their foreskin experience no loss in sensitivity?

But the thing is- why go to such lengths to deny men the right to choose for there on bodies?